Advertisement

Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 93, Issue 4, pp 547–556 | Cite as

Diel variation in use of cover and feeding activity of a benthic freshwater fish in response to olfactory cues of a diurnal predator

  • Jeffrey P. Vanderpham
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
  • Gerard P. Closs
Article

Abstract

Some fish recognize the threat of predatory fish through chemical cues, which may result in variation in diel activity. However, there is little experimental evidence of diel shifts in activity of prey fish in response to the diel activity of a predator. We compared the total prey consumed and the use of cover by common bullies (Gobiomorphus cotidianus), a native benthic feeding eleotrid, when exposed to the odour of an exotic predator, European perch (Perca fluviatilis), over a 12-h period. Our results showed no significant effect of perch odour on feeding activity, but a significant increase in the use of cover at night and a decrease in the use of cover by day. While common bullies may recognize the presence of a predator through chemical cues, dark conditions may inhibit this and other sensory mechanisms, affecting their ability to recognize the proximity of a predator. For example, during the daytime they may rely on visual cues to initiate cover-seeking behavior, but in the dark, vision is impaired giving them less warning of predators, thus potentially making them more vulnerable.

Keywords

Chemical cues Gobiomorphus cotidianus Mysid Perca fluviatilis Predator cues Sensory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the Department of Zoology at the University of Otago for providing the equipment and laboratory resources necessary for this study. We thank Andrew Hicks and Kim Garrett for their assistance with fish collection and aquaria maintenance as well as providing input on the experimental design.

Supplementary material

10641_2011_9949_MOESM1_ESM.doc (46 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 43 kb)

References

  1. Abrahams M, Kattenfeld M (1997) The role of turbidity as a constraint on predator-prey interactions in aquatic environments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amo L, Galvá I, Tomást G, Sanz JJ (2008) Predator odour recognition and avoidance in a songbird. Funct Ecol 22:289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JL, Laurel BJ, Brown JA (2007) Diel changes in behaviour and habitat use by age-0 Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) in the laboratory and field. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 351:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassett DK, Carton AG, Montgomery JC (2007) Saltatory search in a lateral line predator. J Fish Biol 70:1148–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergman E (1988) Foraging abilities and niche breadths of two percids, Perca fluviatilis and Gynocephalus cernua, under different environmental conditions. J Anim Ecol 57:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein D, Barrow L, Luterra M (2008) Olfactory predator discrimination in yello-bellied marmots. Ethol 114:1135–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown GE (2003) Learning about danger: chemical alarm cues and local risk assessment in prey fishes. Fish Fish 4:227–234Google Scholar
  8. Brown C, Laland KN (2003) Social learning in fishes: a review. Fish Fish 4:280–288Google Scholar
  9. Brown GE, Smith RJF (1996) Foraging trade-offs in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas, Osteichthyes, Cyprinidae): acquired predator recognition in the absence of an alarm response. Ethol 102:776–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown GE, Paige JA, Godin JGJ (2000) Chemically mediated predator inspection behaviour in the absence of predator visual cues by a characin fish. Anim Behav 60:315–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chivers DP, Mirza RS (2001) Importance of predator diet cues in response of larval wood frogs to fish and invertebrate predators. J Chem Ecol 27:45–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coombs S, Janssen J, Webb JF (1988) Diversity of lateral line system; evolutionary and functional considerations. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds) Sensory biology of aquatic animals, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 553–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craig JF (1977) Seasonal-changes in day and night activity of adult perch, Perca fluviatilis L. J Fish Biol 11:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Culp JM (1989) Nocturnally constrained foraging of a lotic minnow (Rhinichthys cataractae). Can J Zool-Rev Can Zool 67:2008–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eklov P, Persson L (1995) Species-specific antipredator capacities and prey refuges - interactions between piscivorous perch (Perca fluviatilis) and juvenile perch and roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finley R (1959) Observation of nocturnal animals by red light. J Mammal 40:591–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraser NHC, Metcalfe NB, Thorpe JE (1993) Temperature-dependent switch between diurnal and nocturnal foraging in salmon. Proc R Soc London, Ser B 252:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths WE (1976) Food and feeding habits of european perch in the selwyn river, canterbury, New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Freshwat Res 10:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanika S, Kramer B (2000) Electrosensory prey detection in the African sharptooth catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Clariidae), of a weakly electric mormyrid fish, the bulldog (Marcusenius macrolepidotus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 48:218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartman EJ, Abrahams MV (2000) Sensory compensation and the detection of predators: the interaction between chemical and visual information. Proc R Soc London, Ser B 267:571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helfman GS (1989) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish-trumpetfish interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoekstra D, Janssen J (1985) Non-visual feeding behaviour of the mottled sculpin, Coitus bairdi, in Lake Michigan. Environ Biol Fish 12:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James PL, Heck KL (1994) The effects of habitat complexity and light-intensity on ambush predation within simulated seagrass habitat. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 176:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Janssen J (2004) Lateral line sensory ecology. In: Emde G, Mogdans J, Kapoor BG (eds) The senses of fish: adaptations for the reception of natural stimuli. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 231–264Google Scholar
  25. Jury SH, Howell H, O’Grady DF, Watson WH III (2001) Lobster trap video in situ video suerveillance of the behaviour of Homarus americanus in and around traps. Mar Freshw Res 52:1125–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katano O, Aonuma Y, Iguchi K, Yodo T, Matsubara N (2003) Difference in response by two cyprinid species to predatory threat from the nocturnal catfish Silurus asotus. Ichthyol Res 50:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kattel GR, Closs GP (2007) Spatial and temporal variation in the fish community of a South Island, New Zealand coastal lake. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 41:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelley JL, Magurran AE (2003) Learned predator recognition and antipredator responses in fishes. Fish Fish 4:216–226Google Scholar
  29. Kristensen EA, Closs GP (2004) Anti-predator response of naive and experienced common bully to chemical alarm cues. J Fish Biol 64:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kullmann H, Thünken T, Baldauf SA, Bakker TCM, Frommen JG (2008) Fish odour triggers conspecific attraction behaviour in an aquatic invertebrate. Biol Lett 4:248–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kusch RC, Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2004) Making sense of predator scents: investigating the sophistication of predator assessment abilities of flathead minnows. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:551–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lehtiniemi M, Engstrom-Ost J, Viitasalo M (2005) Turbidity decreases anti-predator behaviour in pike larvae, Esox lucius. Environ Biol Fish 73:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindén E, Lehtiniemi M, Viitasalo M (2003) Predator avoidance behaviour of Baltic littoral mysids Neomysis integer and Praunus flexuosus. Mar Biol 143:845–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ludgate BG, Closs GP (2003) Responses of fish communities to sustained removals of perch (Perca fluviatilis). Science for Conservation 210. Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. MacKenzie AR, Greenberg L (1998) The influence of instream cover and predation risk on microhabitat selection of stone loach Barbatula barbatula (L.). Ecol Freshwat Fish 7:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin CW, Fodrie FJ, Heck KL, Mattila J (2010) Differential habitat use and antipredator response of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) to olfactory and visual cues from multiple predators. Oecologia 162:893–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDowall RM (1990) New Zealand freshwater fishes: a natural history and guide. Heinemann Reed, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  38. McDowall RM (2000) The reed field guide to New Zealand freshwater fishes. Reed Books, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  39. Mikheev VN, Wanzenbock J, Pasternak AF (2006) Effects of predator-induced visual and olfactory cues on 0+perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) foraging behaviour. Ecol Freshwat Fish 15:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milinski M (1993) Predation risk and feeding behaviour. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2000) Predator-recognition training enhances survival of brook trout: evidence from laboratory and field-enclosure studies. Can J Zool-Rev Can Zool 78:2198–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2001) Do chemical alarm signals enhance survival of aquatic vertebrates? An analysis of the current research paradigm. In: Marchlewska-Kog A, Lepri JJ, Müller-Schwarze D (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates. Kluwer, New York, pp 19–26, Vol 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Montgomery J, Coombs S, Halstead M (1995) Biology of the mechanosensory lateral-line in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 5:399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paszkowski CA, Penttinen O-P, Holopainen IJ, Tonn WM (1996) Predation risk and feeding patterns of crucian carp. J Fish Biol 48:818–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pettersson LB, Andersson K, Nilsson K (2001) The diel activity of crucian carp, Carassius carassius, in relation to chemical cues from predators. Environ Biol Fish 61:341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2.10.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  47. Reebs SG (2002) Plasticity of diel and circadian activity rhythms in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 12:349–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Richmond HE, Hrabik TR, Mensinger AF (2004) Light intensity, prey detection and foraging mechanisms of age 0 year yellow perch. J Fish Biol 65:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rilov G, Figueira WF, Lyman SJ, Crowder LB (2007) Complex habitats may not always benefit prey: linking visual field with reef fish behavior and distribution. Mar Ecol 329:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roussel JM, Bardonnet A (1999) Ontogeny of diel pattern of stream-margin habitat use by emerging brown trout, Salmo trutta, in experimental channels: influence of food and predator presence. Environ Biol Fish 56:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rowe DK (1999) Factors influencing the abundance of the common bully, Gobiomorphus cotidianus, in small, North Island, New Zealand, lakes. Fish Manag Ecol 6:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rowe DK, Dean TL (1998) Effects of turbidity on the feeding ability of the juvenile migrant stage of six New Zealand freshwater fish species. New Zeal J Mar Freshwat Res 32:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rowe DK, Nichols S, Kelly GR (2001) Depth distribution and abundance of the common bully, Gobiomorphus cotidianus (Eleotridae), in three oligotrophic New Zealand lakes, one of which is turbid. Environ Biol Fish 61:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Savino JF, Stein RA (1982) Predator-prey interaction between largemouth bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated, submersed vegetation. Trans Am Fish Soc 111:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Savino J, Stein R (1989a) Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Environ Biol Fish 24:287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Savino JF, Stein RA (1989b) Behavioural interactions between fish predators and their prey: effects of plant density. Anim Behav 37:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Method Ecol Evol 1:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schleuter D, Eckmann R (2006) Competition between perch (Perca fluviatilis) and ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus): the advantage of turning night into day. Freshw Biol 51:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith RJF (1973) Testosterone eliminates alarm substance in male fathead minnows. Can J Zool-Rev Can Zool 51:875–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stuart-Smith RD, White RWG, Barmuta LA (2008) A shift in the habitat use pattern of a lentic galaxiid fish: an acute behavioural response to an introduced predator. Environ Biol Fish 82:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson GM (1922) The naturalization of animals and plants in New Zealand. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Webb JK, Pike DA, Shine R (2010) Olfactory recognition of predators by nocturnal lizards: safety outweighs thermal benefits. Behav Ecol 21:72–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittelbach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecol 64:1540–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ylönen H, Kortet R, Myntti J, Vainikka A (2007) Predator odor recognition and antipredatory response in fish: does the prey know the predator diel rhythm? Acta Oecol 31:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey P. Vanderpham
    • 1
  • Shinichi Nakagawa
    • 1
  • Gerard P. Closs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations